Those things aren't inherently related, though. One doesn't inevitably lead to the other. We're not "forced" to do anything as a result of going along with gay marriage. The slippery slope only applies if you're unable to say yes to one thing and no to the other (so we weren't forced, just too weak (or more accurately the cheaters who put themselves in power were too weak (or evil)) to say no as things progressed).
Example scenario:
"Should killing random, innocent people for no reason be illegal?"
"Yes, obviously"
"Should we get rid of the death penalty for child rapists, serial killers, etc?"
"I mean, I guess..."
"Should killing someone in self-defense be made illegal?"
"Umm.... sure?"
"Should killing for any reason be made illegal"
"Well, we made it this far... might as well..."
The solution here isn't to say no to number one because people will then want numbers two, three, and four, it's to not be a weakling and to have the strength to just say no to two, three, and four and be done with it. The right decision was made in terms of number one while the other three are stupid ideas so we should just ignore them and the people pushing them.
It's like with children. They're going to push the envelope to see how much they can get away with when you allow them to do certain things. That doesn't mean you have to give in though and give them/let them do whatever they want. Eventually, they hear no enough times and accept the decision and stop screaming and complaining about it.
Allowing or banning something is inevitably going to bring forward people who want to go one step further, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow the first thing. We just have to stop when we get to something that's actually bad. We can't let what people are going to demand in the future stop us from making the right changes in the present.
Frankly, the "slippery slope" is more like a non-slippery slight decline with several decisions to be carefully made along the way, one step at a time. Making one doesn't really force you into any of the others like a "slippery" slope would imply. Everything is a deliberate decision.
Ultimately, the way I see it is that the slippery slope is simultaneously a law and a fallacy. It all depends on who the people making the decisions are. So it's absolutely a concern if the people making the decisions are corrupt and/or untrustworthy, but if you know the people making the decisions are legit in a certain case then it shouldn't really be a worry as it's not really an issue on its own without constant poor decision making.
Those things aren't inherently related, though. One doesn't inevitably lead to the other. We're not "forced" to do anything as a result of going along with gay marriage. The slippery slope only applies if you're unable to say yes to one thing and no to the other (so we weren't forced, just too weak (or more accurately the cheaters who put themselves in power were too weak (or evil)) to say no as things progressed).
Example scenario:
"Should killing random, innocent people for no reason be illegal?"
"Yes, obviously"
"Should we get rid of the death penalty for child rapists, serial killers, etc?"
"I mean, I guess..."
"Should killing someone in self-defense be made illegal?"
"Umm.... sure?"
"Should killing for any reason be made illegal"
"Well, we made it this far... might as well..."
The solution here isn't to say no to number one because people will then want numbers two, three, and four, it's to not be a weakling and to have the strength to just say no to two, three, and four and be done with it. The right decision was made in terms of number one while the other three are stupid ideas so we should just ignore them and the people pushing them.
It's like with children. They're going to push the envelope to see how much they can get away with when you allow them to do certain things. That doesn't mean you have to give in though and give them/let them do whatever they want. Eventually, they hear no enough times and accept the decision and stop screaming and complaining about it.
Allowing or banning something is inevitably going to bring forward people who want to go one step further, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow the first thing. We just have to stop when we get to something that's actually bad. We can't let what people are going to demand in the future stop us from making the right changes in the present.
Frankly, the "slippery slope" is more like a non-slippery slight decline with several decisions to be carefully made along the way, one step at a time. Making one doesn't really force you into any of the others like a "slippery" slope would imply. Everything is a deliberate decision.
Ultimately, the way I see it is that the slippery slope is simultaneously a law and a fallacy. It all depends on who the people making the decisions are. So it's absolutely a concern if the people making the decisions are corrupt and/or untrustworthy, but if you know the people making the decisions are legit in a certain case then it shouldn't really be a worry as it's not really an issue on its own without constant poor decision making.